Information & Ethics Committee on Dec. 8th, 2025

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

We apply the act in such a way that there are no conflicts of interest. The public can rest assured that everything that's done is done properly. At the same time, we want to give the government as much flexibility as possible to ensure the country's safety.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I have one last question. We're pitting the national interest against the Prime Minister's personal interest, because his shares are in a blind trust.

How can we say that this situation is in the national interest? What leads us, as observers or monitors, to say that it's in the national interest?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have 10 seconds to respond.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé, do you have anything to say?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

There are six seconds left.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

National interest is about public interest. The act provides for a recusal mechanism if private interest is invoked rather than public interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. Cooper, you have five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, does Brookfield provide you with an update of its new investments and acquisitions?

There's no mechanism in place. Have you thought about reaching out to Brookfield in light of the fact that as Brookfield's portfolio changes, potential new conflicts of interest involving the Prime Minister could emerge?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Brookfield is not subject to the act. The Prime Minister is and his interests in Brookfield are, but Brookfield itself is not.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Right, and his interests are tied directly to Brookfield, which could be impacted by certain acquisitions that Brookfield makes over the course of time. I'm asking you this in the context of ensuring that this is a living ethics screen, not a stale, dated ethics screen.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I have no power to ask Brookfield to disclose what it's doing or what its business strategies or acquisitions are, etc. All I can deal with is what's in the public domain and what has been disclosed—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I understand that your official powers under the law might be limited, but have you ever reached out?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, I have not, because it behooves me to act in accordance with the act, not to add to the act or use the position of my office or its authority in order to obtain information to which I'm not entitled.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I think the key mandate of your office is to ensure that there are not conflicts of interest, and that if there are conflicts of interest, to investigate those conflicts thoroughly.

It seems that on top of 1,900 Brookfield companies being missing from the ethics screen, which is about 95%, it may be, in a matter of time, that 97% or 98% of Brookfield companies and businesses are not captured in the ethics screen. This raises questions about the robustness of the screen. I would argue that it raises questions about it being deficient.

Mr. Carney stands to make tens of millions of dollars in carried interest payments—in other words, future bonus pay—from the multi-billion dollar Brookfield global transition fund I, which he registered in the offshore tax haven of Bermuda.

I understand that you're aware of the holdings within that fund, but are you aware of the limited partners—in other words, the investors in the fund?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm not aware of investors in the fund. No.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Did you request this information from Mr. Carney?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

We asked him for information relating to his holdings and his interests. He pointed out that he has an interest in Brookfield, and part of it is in Brookfield's global transition fund, which, as you said, has a deferred benefit provision in it.

I don't know the relevance of the other partners. Why would I ask for that information?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I think it's material to know who invested in Mr. Carney's future bonus pay. These are, after all, investors that Mr. Carney would have personally sought out when he set up the fund. These investors represent potential conflicts of interest.

More broadly, I think it's in the public interest to know to whom Mr. Carney is beholden. It could be the Bank of China or the Qatar Investment Fund. We don't know.

Again, I put it to you that it is material.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

You're using the word “beholden”. I don't know on what basis you're using it. There may be other people who have invested in the fund. That doesn't mean they're beholden to it.

The whole implication of this is that there is something illicit or not proper that requires investigation. I can't do that—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

No, I don't think that's a fair characterization. I think we have a Prime Minister who was involved in setting up in the fund. There are investors that he would have reached out to, and he stands to potentially make a lot of money in future bonus pay.

All I'm asking is whether there has been all of the disclosure that is necessary. I don't necessarily mean that all of it is in the public domain, but that your office has received the full co-operation of the Prime Minister in sharing all things that are material.

I think limited partners are material, but it sounds like the Prime Minister's Office hasn't been forthcoming. It seems like the Prime Minister has been very limited in what he has disclosed to you. I find it shocking that he didn't, for example, provide you with a list of 2,000 companies, but he gave you 103 companies, and you said, “Okay, that's it. There's no need to look any further.”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Maloney, you have five minutes.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to the witnesses.

The accusation period is almost over. Mr. Barrett, again, raised a topic I find quite intriguing. He suggested that elected officials dispose of all their controlled assets and be sheltered from the tax consequences. I'm sure that would be enticing to a lot of people, to run for office if they knew they could run, dispose of all of their controlled assets and not face any tax consequences.

Do you think that's a realistic proposal, sir?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, sir.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I knew the answer, but I thought I'd ask the question anyway.

It's absurd in the extreme, actually. I don't think Canadians would find it appropriate at all that taxpayer money was used to pay the taxes for elected officials.

On Mr. Cooper's point about voting on things that could ultimately benefit somebody, all of the Prime Minister's assets are in a blind trust. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes.